The Value Of Self-Censorship

 

I am one who firmly believes that far too many people are far too easily offended today, whether it is reflected in demands to tear down statues because of historical transgressions, as in the case of Sir John A., or tossing out all of Winston Churchill's accomplishments because of his and the Empire's historical racism ( as opposed to making the statues part of history's lessons). That being said, there really is no excuse today for people to be blowing dogwhistles that appeal to a very base base.

Such is the case with the much-publicized cancellation of Dilbert, thanks to its creator, Scott Adams, opining that Black people are  “a hate group” that white people need to “get the hell away from.”

Adams deserves every cancellation he gets, but he’s not alone in deserving our opprobrium.  He might not have made the specific racist remarks he made but for Rasmussen Reports, which, smack-dab in the middle of Black History Month, decided to ask a pair of questions more befitting of Confederate Heritage Month.

Rasmussen Reports pollsters asked 1,000 people to agree or disagree with two statements: “It’s OK to be white” and “Black people can be racist, too.” Nothing good was ever going to come from those questions, and it was irresponsible and incendiary for Rasmussen to use those questions, and only those questions, in a survey.

White supremacists know such statements well.

“It’s OK to be white” is a sentence that has been embraced by white supremacists who oppose good-faith efforts to make our country more diverse, equitable and inclusive. “Black people can be racist, too,” is another sentiment one hears primarily from white people who don’t want to be reminded of the oppression white Americans have carried out. They are the same people who, contrary to all the evidence, argue that racism in America works both ways.

Of course, as is often the case in such matters, Adams sees himself as a victim, but I have both an observation and a little advice on this matter for him and his fellow travellers.

First, I think we have to admit that very few of us are completely without biases. Some of them might be minor, or they might be very significant. None of us is without blame in our lives. As long as we recognize and acknowledge to ourselves those prejudices or inclinations, we can choose not to act upon them.

Now I know many will say that if you have those biases, they will inexorably reveal themselves through what they like to call microaggressions. They may be right, but human nature offers the opportunity for growth, and I am of the firm opinion that we can choose to resist evil, because its embrace is a conscious act, doubtlessly influenced by conditioning and even unconscious underpinnings. 

My advice to people like Scott Adams and his ilk is simple: keep your views to yourself. To pronounce upon such matters from a position of some influence does no one any good. Indeed, I would extend that advice to everyone. We have to realize (and it can be humbling) that the larger world is not thirsting for our views, and that any impulse to believe otherwise is sheer egoism. 

And haven't we had more than enough of that nonsense in recent years?

 

 

Responding To The Corporate Siren Call

The other day, I posted about our successive governments' inability to resist the siren call of the corporate imperative, wedded as they are both socially and ideologically to their summons. In my previous post, I explored how postal banking fell victim to that imperative. Today I explore another example of our representatives' unseemly subjugation of the electorate's well-being to the demands of their real overlords. 

Pharmaceuticals constitute yet another powerful tail that wags the government dog. The genesis of the problem lies both in the disastrous privatization of Connaught Labs and the extension of drug patent protections, both occurring under the aegis of former prime minister Brian Mulroney, a man who never met a corporation he didn't like. Since the former is widely known, it is the latter that I shall deal with here, en route to a larger point.

The problem goes back to 1987, when

pharmaceutical corporations promised to spend 10 per cent of their revenue on research and development in Canada in exchange for longer monopoly patents (and therefore bigger profits) on the drugs they produce. 

That was known as Bill C-22, (which also created the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, which I shall return to momentarily).

The pharma promise turned out to be a false one. A 2014 study conducted by the Council of Canadians found that 

companies actually spent less than half that – in fact just 4.5 per cent – of their sales in 2013 on research. The National Post reports, “It is more evidence that the industry’s long-standing attempt to link patent protection with research investment holds little water, say experts in the area.”

Despite this, the Trudeau government is still clearly in the thrall of Big Pharma, as reflected in recent actions by Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos.

The NDP has called for a parliamentary investigation into allegations the Liberal government caved to corporate lobbyists who oppose changes to drug pricing reforms, as Ottawa faces pressure over the long-delayed process to rein in pharmaceutical costs.

The demand comes as three members of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB), the country’s drug pricing regulator, resigned — including two this week — after the government asked the board to pause consultations on a reform that Parliament’s budget watchdog estimates could save Canadians billions of dollars in drug costs. 

Earlier this week, online media outlet The Breach reported that Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos penned a letter to the board’s acting chair requesting the pause due to stakeholder and industry concerns. One of the resigning review board members also slammed Duclos and the government, alleging they chose to echo corporate opposition to the changes and undermined the board’s work to keep drug prices in check.

“It is difficult enough for a sector-specific regulator to do its job in the face of a hostile industry. But when the government adds its voice to that of industry, all that lies before the regulator is an endless tunnel with no light,” wrote former board member Matthew Herder in his resignation letter this week.

The board's work is extremely important, and what is at stake is quite significant:

The regulations have been in the works since 2016, and they would allow the board to consider the market size, as well as the costs and benefits of certain drugs before it determines prices for Canadians. The proposed rules would also permit the board to change the list of countries it uses for price comparisons, among other things.

When Big Pharma went to court over the proposals, the Quebec Court of Appeal ruled some parts were unconstitutional; the Trudeau government didn't even bother to appeal.

“In choosing not to seek leave to appeal, the government effectively countenanced the evisceration of its own reform,” [resigning board member Matthew] Herder said.

Grovelling before Big Pharma has a long and odious history. As reported in The Breach, because Canadians pay among the highest drug prices in the world, in 2017 the government launched something called Protecting Canadians from Excessive Drug Prices. 

The original policy would have saved almost $13 billion in drug costs over 10 years. 

Almost immediately, the policy hit a wall of resistance from the industry and industry-funded patient groups. After a series of delays, court challenges, and threats that included withholding new drugs from Canadian patients, the industry appeared to have won the fight.  

To appreciate the full extent of industry resistance to anything that would reduce their profits, I encourage you to read the above Breach article in full.

And so I end as I began: our government, while happy to engage in political theatre, refuses to stand up to its real master, the corporate sector. And all of us, both literally and figuratively, are the poorer for that sad fact.

 

About The Company You Are Keeping

If you haven't read it yet, check out Owen's post today about the uproar over Conservative MPs feting Christine Anderson, the far-right politician from Germany. Now embroiled in damage control. Con leader PP insists there is no place for such extreme views in Canada, claiming that his MPs knew nothing about her racism. 

The entire incident reminds one of the axiom that we are judged by the company we keep. Which brings us to the following TikTok video, reposted on Twitter, in which lisab0923 brings up some unpleasant truths that PP would rather we not ponder:

Genuflecting At The Altar Of Corporate Giants

For the longest time, I have been pondering the timidity of successive governments to be on anything but the good side of the corporate titans who walk among us. Certainly, we sometimes hear brave words that are scripted from the world of political theatre, but when the metal hits the pedal, as they say, the veil is lifted, and compliance to the corporate imperative is guaranteed.

Take postal banking, for example. Canada actually has a long history of postal banking that was ultimately brought to an end by the intercession of big banking interests:

This system began operating in 1868 with 81 locations and grew quickly. By 1884, there were 343 post office savings banks, with a balance of $13 million from almost 67,000 accounts. However, Canada's postal banking system confronted challenges from chartered banks by the 1890s. These banks, facing a recession, became interested in attracting the kind of small-time depositors who used post office savings banks and they actively worked to undermine postal banking. In 1898, the chartered banks successfully lobbied the government to reduce the interest rate paid on deposits at postal savings banks from 3% to 2.5%. They also worked to eliminate advertising by postal banks. 

Despite the fact that the services allowed anyone to have an account, it ended in 1969. Since that time, there has been increasing interest in bringing them back, largely due to the obstacles that poor, disenfranchised people have in securing an account with one of the big banks, whose onerous (and very lucrative) fees pose an insurmountable barrier to many. Indeed, a secret study was conducted by Canada Post that showed both the need for, and the benefits of, postal banking. Unfortunately, most of that report's finding were redacted.

The only alternative many Canadians currently have is the usurious pay-day loans and check-cashing services, which, through astoundingly high interest rates, cruelly bleed the hapless user. In a report done two years ago by Marketplace,, the rate for loans appeared to be an astounding 47%:

Lenders in Canada can charge up to 60 per cent interest, according to the Criminal Code of Canada. A rate of 46.96 per cent seems well under this threshold, but there are several ways of calculating interest. In fact, a 46.96 per cent APR (annual percentage rate) comes in at just under 60 per cent when using the calculation dictated by federal law. 

"So they all manoeuvre just below, just to make sure there are no [criminal] charges," said Ringuette. "Quite a good business plan for them. But what about Canadian consumers?"

Given that interest rates were at record lows until recently, that people would borrow/cash cheques at one of these businesses attests to their desperation, a desperation that could be alleviated by postal banking.

Unfortunately, our government overlords seem very loathe to permit the kind of competition that would unsettle not only payday loan services but, more importantly, the fat profits enjoyed by the big banks. Why? One part of the answer surely lies in the composition of our federal governments, including the current one. Most are hardly what you would call rank-and-file Canadians; the kind of money it takes to run for office and get elected is to be found largely in campaign donations from the moneyed, who will not back those wishing to upset the applecart. As well, the vast majority of our representatives move in circles that most of us only know about second hand. Not for us are the environs of the Bronfmans, the Rodgers, the CEOs of big business, all with vested interests in maintaining as much as possible the status quo that benefits them so richly.

None of what I have written should come as a revelation. However, with current levels of political disengagement, there would seem little prospect of (or need for) real change. Until Canadians start demanding better, our politicians will continue to worship at the altar of our Corporate Giants.

The Real Snowflakes

The extreme right seems to take pleasure in calling progressive people snowflakes, implying that they are such sensitive souls that any criticism or views that don't accord with theirs hurt their feelings. Of course, the real snowflakes are the rabid right, who profess outrage whenever someone calls them what they are, tin-foil-hat devotees. Yet somehow it is alright for them to call for Trudeau's execution or, more popularly, brandish their F.ck Trudeau emblems. 

The following young lady, who I have featured before, takes the true measure of these people in the following short video.

A Hidden History

Ideally, history teaches us about the past, enabling us to gain perspective on what came before and learn lessons so that we don't make the same mistakes over and over again, ad infinitum. While recent history underscores the fact that we are not apt students, even the small chance of taking instruction from the past is not possible when some history is purposely hidden, obscured, or minimized. 

That is precisely what happened with the race massacres that occurred in the United States starting around 1916 and culminating in the Tulsa Massacre of 1921. I have to admit that I only learned of the latter when viewing HBO's Watchmen, which begins with that event.

I just finished watching Rise Again: Tulsa and The Red Summer, a National Geographic documentary that, in my view, should be required viewing in high schools throughout the U.S. as part of their history courses. In it, students would learn not only about the Tulsa Massacre but also the myriad ones that preceded it in places as diverse as Washington D.C., Elaine Arkansas, and New York City. It is precisely this kind of access to knowledge that Ron DeSantis in Florida is trying to make illegal.

Here is the trailer for the film, which I cannot recommend highly enough.

Shameless And Incorrigible

I was going to post about Doug Ford today on another topic today, but then I came across this video, yet another testament to his shameless lack of ethics and morality. It pertains to the recent announcement that Magna International will be the recipient of a $23 million Ford government grant for EV development despite this fact: The company has a net worth of $15.6 billion and has more than 200 locations worldwide, according to Forbes.

Oh, and one more thing. Ford's daughter, Kayla, works for Magna. Apparently, conflict of interest is a concept beyond the premier's ken.